uos-convene
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [uos-convene] Here we go again

To: Upper Ontology Summit convention <uos-convene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:31:11 -0500
Message-id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060227132856.04f32820@xxxxxxxxxxx>
\



MW: I think we have explored this option, and it doesn't seem to me to work.
...
MW: So let me propose a new approach:
 
1. A 4D ontology (just the core bits that make it 4D).
 
2. A 3D ontology (just the core bits that make it 3D - in this context I like what you propose)
 
3. A mapping between the two.
 
4. A number of upper domain ontologies that can be added to either a 3D or 4D core. (Taxonomies are likely to be easiest to do this for).


This means that everyone has to embrace a position that is metaphysically reductionist, either asserting that: everything is 4D, or asserting that everything is 3D. Since practically all normal human beings thing that there are both 3D entities, e.g. people, and 4D entities, e.g. processes of dying, this would leave the end-result with very few potential users.
BS
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>